In /newstuff reviewing center news, I've added another status that requests that the reviewer clarify or edit their review. This is for the in-between cases where something is unclear, or if the review is salvageable--not able to be approved in its current form, but not bad enough to be rejected outright. Mr. Freeze on "The Plasticine Cacodemon" is the first guinea pig.

Various said:
'deserves better than some noobie reviewer..'
'published..'
'WADs one wants to review are already taken..'

I don't really get it.. in the wads/mods forum, anyone can write a review/give feedback/discuss stuff, rather than illogically funneling some sort of 'official' review through just 1 person here. There was plenty of feedback in the scythex thread over there for example from various people.. whoever happens to be interested can comment.
How is this forum supposed to be more 'published' or useful than that? Its all just text on the internet that'll be buried by more text.

Multi-level mod reviews must review all of it, and not stop after the third level or so. Doing this and claiming to write something objective is an insult to the mapper(s)

Unless Bloodshedder extends the length of claims to more then just 2 days, this might be a bit of a problem. Maybe I'm just slow, but it usually takes me about a week to play through a megawad, and that combined with writing a detailed review of each individual level of said megawad would create a bit of a problem.

This is the third installment in Erik's Scythe series. Unlike it's predecessors, this set of maps focuses mainly on fast paced linear gamplay. Also, the Gothic themes that define the original scythe series have been replaced by techbase/starbase themes.

The architecture is solid, well done and has consistent themes. There is nothing special or new in this style, but there's nothing wrong with it either. There is a good sense of progression created by these levels, as they smoothly transition from techbase to starbase to skybase.

Gameplay is very fast paced and linear, there are very few switch hunts or keycard puzzles. The action is an absolute blast, as each fight is not painfully difficult, nor is it too easy. I'm generally pretty bad at playing Doom, and I fared pretty well against this map, I only died once.

In all, Scythe X is a well designed and solid map set, it just isn't too original or innovative. Which isn't to say its bad, the solid looks and gameplay are superb. Comes highly recommended, and would be a worthy contender for a Cacoward. My only real gripe with this is how short it is, but I imagine we'll be in for some more Scythe X goodness with the release of the next episode.

This is the third installment in Erik's Scythe series. Unlike it's predecessors, this set of maps focuses mainly on fast paced linear gamplay. Also, the Gothic themes that define the original scythe series have been replaced by techbase/starbase themes.

The architecture is solid, well done and has consistent themes. There is nothing special or new in this style, but there's nothing wrong with it either. There is a good sense of progression created by these levels, as they smoothly transition from techbase to starbase to skybase.

Gameplay is very fast paced and linear, there are very few switch hunts or keycard puzzles. The action is an absolute blast, as each fight is not painfully difficult, nor is it too easy. I'm generally pretty bad at playing Doom, and I fared pretty well against this map, I only died once.

In all, Scythe X is a well designed and solid map set, it just isn't too original or innovative. Which isn't to say its bad, the solid looks and gameplay are superb. Comes highly recommended, and would be a worthy contender for a Cacoward. My only real gripe with this is how short it is, but I imagine we'll be in for some more Scythe X goodness with the release of the next episode.

Of course it is. It's impossible to be unbiased. Even the driest, most objective reporting (like stats, maybe: "the first map has 13745 linedefs, 20563 vertices..." etc.) would be subjective just by the choice of what is said, in which order, and what isn't said.

What matters is that it's fair and accurate, which it can be despite being biased. Sycophantic fawning or flaming vitriol are both useless. If it says it's very good, it fine as long as it explains why it's good; and likewise if it says it's very bad it should explain why. A review that'd say something like "the levels are beautiful and cleverly designed, but insanely hard, there are far too many monsters" show a bias against slaughter maps with a ton of monsters. If you like such kind of maps, though, the review does reveal to you that you'll probably like this mod. Which is how it's fair: there's a clear bias but it doesn't prevent you from seeing past it. (And if it turns out that there's just ten zombiemen and an imp on the map, then the review failed the accuracy test. That's another issue, and that's where screenshots are needed.)

Graf Zahl said:
- reviews that clearly indicate that the reviewer did not play a map (e.g. obvious cheating) are rejected unless the review states a valid reason for the cheating (e.g. bad monster use.)

Cheating can't necessarily be proven though, especially for those who play with the status bar removed.

It's easy enough to walk around in god mode with 200/200, then just turn god mode off and eat some damage, maybe heal up a little before taking the appropriate screen shot. Same thing with weapons/ammo too, you could use a weapons/ammo cheat, then take a shotgun and shoot at a wall until you had 26 shells left, then take a screenshot.

Depending on the wad, you could make a case for clipping cheats, especially if the screenshot was taken from a place that could not be reached by normal means.

The only bit of Patricks review I didn't like was that he said it wasn't too hard, but not too easy. I agree the gameplay was a blast and fast paced but it was relatively easy, especially compared to Scythe 2, where difficulty started kicking in around map02. ScytheX was about Scythe 1's difficulty up until the hell maps.

I have already acknowledged that I suck at playing doom, but everyone's taste in difficulty will always be different. And any review will be biased. I just happened to like Scythe X, and you should too :P

Gez said:
Of course it is. It's impossible to be unbiased. Even the driest, most objective reporting (like stats, maybe: "the first map has 13745 linedefs, 20563 vertices..." etc.) would be subjective just by the choice of what is said, in which order, and what isn't said.

What matters is that it's fair and accurate, which it can be despite being biased. Sycophantic fawning or flaming vitriol are both useless. If it says it's very good, it fine as long as it explains why it's good; and likewise if it says it's very bad it should explain why. A review that'd say something like "the levels are beautiful and cleverly designed, but insanely hard, there are far too many monsters" show a bias against slaughter maps with a ton of monsters. If you like such kind of maps, though, the review does reveal to you that you'll probably like this mod. Which is how it's fair: there's a clear bias but it doesn't prevent you from seeing past it. (And if it turns out that there's just ten zombiemen and an imp on the map, then the review failed the accuracy test. That's another issue, and that's where screenshots are needed.)

Creaphis
I will deliberately take a contrary position just for the sake of writing incredibly long arguments

Posts: 4185
Registered: 10-05

Graf Zahl said:
- Multi-level mod reviews must review all of it, and not stop after the third level or so. Doing this and claiming to write something objective is an insult to the mapper(s).

I'm also going to disagree with this, or at least disagree with this too-strict statement of a good principle. A reviewer should certainly study the entirety of a wad before writing the review, but part of the fine art of reviewing is knowing how to skim through the work while still identifying its essential nature. In a larger wad, this can include use of idclip and idclev. General appraisals and information on the progression of a wad are more useful than individual level reviews, anyway - at least, I don't have the patience or the desire to find out what every individual map is like before I play it, and I think most people think like I do on this, as book reviewers seldom provide a specific appraisal of every chapter. If you don't believe that good reviews can be written without playing the wad to completion, then some of my old reviews could serve as counterexamples.

Wow, and I thought some of my reviews were poorly recieved. Mr. Freeze managed to nitpick at stuff that doesn't even make sense to nitpick at.

The only problem I had with the wad itself is that there is a distinct lack of impassable linedefs. It was all too easy to escape some levels and break the illusion when Erik could have simply added a impassable flag or disabled jumping. Small complaint, but I feel it bears mentioning.

You can't put a quantifiable setting on what makes a review good. The reviewer just needs to know what his audience is looking for.

Mr. Freeze did not realize we are not interested in what he thinks of wads-that-are-not-megawads, or that not all of us play ZDoom (or he knew these things and claimed the review just to make a statement, if that's the case, shame on you).

I say this because I think it's easy for a new reviewer to see these comments and say "they're gonna trash my review if I say something they don't want to hear." That's not true.

Bloodshedder said:
Mr. Freeze on "The Plasticine Cacodemon" is the first guinea pig.

I was actually wondering about that. Not the least because while I got quite encouraging feedback on the forums (to the point of making me enhance my first attempt and complete the project, at least for vanilla-red), the idgames reviews were obviously trolled/spammed.

I know that much better things can be done with plasticine, but I can't make out head or tails between people telling me "Cool!" and others saying "YOU'RE SHIT SUCKS!".

Bloodshedder said:Does this /newstuff Chronicles suck? Does your wise ass think you can write better reviews than these jerkoffs? Then get over to the /newstuff Review Center and help out. I know you must have a Doomworld Forums account because you like griping about this edition in the comment thread, but if you don't, you need to get one to submit reviews.

This is about the funniest thing I've read all day. The wording is just... perfection.

Craigs said:
Unless Bloodshedder extends the length of claims to more then just 2 days, this might be a bit of a problem. Maybe I'm just slow, but it usually takes me about a week to play through a megawad, and that combined with writing a detailed review of each individual level of said megawad would create a bit of a problem.

This really shouldn't be a problem. You can write the review as you play. Finish a few levels, start your review, and I can leave it as-is. It won't expire then, and you'll have all the time you need to finish reviewing. (Within reason, of course.)

Maes said:
I was actually wondering about that. Not the least because while I got quite encouraging feedback on the forums (to the point of making me enhance my first attempt and complete the project, at least for vanilla-red), the idgames reviews were obviously trolled/spammed.

I know that much better things can be done with plasticine, but I can't make out head or tails between people telling me "Cool!" and others saying "YOU'RE SHIT SUCKS!".

Hate to break your bubble, but it's not "cool!" and "you're shit sucks!"
I've really tried to stay away from this. But with this post, I found it too hard to not to.

The plasticine Cacodemon you made is not a good model by any stretch of the imagination. While I applaud the idea, even though the idea should've been obvious to anyone long ago. I think you really need to take a good hard long look at what you are making here exactly. Even the thread you posted as an example of how "good" it can be is still not good enough in my opinion. Not good enough to compare with the clay models of Doom. Which is what you're trying to get comparable results to I am hoping.

At least investigate the basics of clay modeling. It's really not complicated. Work with the material more, get accustomed to what you can and can not do with it. Experiment.
Look at reference images as you work.
Please try to be better.

I really don't want to kill your will to do this. I just wish you would see what you are doing. The fact that you can't tell which side is "correct". Is frustrating to me actually. Yeah, some people are trolls and will probably hate no matter what. And some people are just blunt. That's not really a dead giveaway that they don't care though.

However. I care, and I wish that you will get better. But first you must see it yourself. And at the time, I don't think you do.

Creaphis
I will deliberately take a contrary position just for the sake of writing incredibly long arguments

Posts: 4185
Registered: 10-05

Bloodshedder: Thanks for putting up with all of our shit.

Kristus: I like Maes' plasticine sprites, not because they're "good," but because they're lumps of plasticine - they're cute, simple, fun, childish, etc. I kind of thought that was the point of them. If it really was the point of them to be "good models" then I'll back you up on this.

However. I care, and I wish that you will get better. But first you must see it yourself. And at the time, I don't think you do.

You're mostly right, and I had already addressed the matter in this post yesterday. Still however, I feel that there were too many trollish reviews (IT SUCKS DON'T DOWNLOAD 0/5 is not much different that YOU'RE SHIT SUCKS, in my book).

Sure I don't expect every review to be a mature digression like your post above but seeing such review extremes puzzled me, considering how different the tone was in the forums. It's not that I suddenly changed leagues or anything.

Creaphis said:
Kristus: I like Maes' plasticine sprites, not because they're "good," but because they're lumps of plasticine - they're cute, simple, fun, childish, etc. I kind of thought that was the point of them. If it really was the point of them to be "good models" then I'll back you up on this.

Yeah, I looked at it this way, and I really couldn't find anything wrong with it, except that the dead caco sprite is too dark.

DuckReconMajor said:
Yeah, I looked at it this way, and I really couldn't find anything wrong with it, except that the dead caco sprite is too dark.

I fucked up some things like the lighting conditions and background along the way, and I had to make heavy edits and colorizing to normalize color rendering between different series of poses. I am actually surprised I got major things like scale constant, and that the rotations worked out well.

I had clean up the vanilla-ized sprites a lot too, and often arbitrate if a bright pixel is to be considered "stray" or not.

Heh, bitching about newstuff reviews is nothing new guys. People were doing it during the AndrewB years, the Deathzor years and now the user submitted years.

I think the fundamental problem is that we all have different tastes and when there is only one opinion some people are inevitably going to think that that opinion is wrong. Now this isn't obvious when its some little (crappy) map made by some no-name, but when its by someone like Eric Alm its much easier to see.

The reason why it went user submitted is because newstuff was getting too irregular from memory and the people in charge of it were struggling to find the time to review all the wads submitted each week. On the flip side, while opening it up to everyone can certainly sped up the process of getting a newstuff done, it does open up the possibility to having a complete Noob review a well respected piece of work. My suggestion is a hybrid approach. Have a group of 'respected' Doomers be able to see any review that has been submitted that has not been published yet, and allow them to submit a second opinion on the map if they so wish. Hopefully that will solve problems like this!

Phil1984 said:
Heh, bitching about newstuff reviews is nothing new guys. People were doing it during the AndrewB years, the Deathzor years and now the user submitted years.

You're telling that to guys like Anders, myk, Graf Zahl and others who have been around forever and are aware of that, but different moments of controversy or "review criticism" don't all have the same causes.

I think the fundamental problem is that we all have different tastes and when there is only one opinion some people are inevitably going to think that that opinion is wrong.

It's important to discern between differences of opinion, controversial topics and a lack of competence.

The real problem is a lack of review submissions. If everyone were fighting to submit reviews, Bloodshedder could reject lame ones without being concerned that it will postpone the Chronicles any further. As for the hybrid solution you proposed, if people hardly submit a first opinion, why would they submit a second?

That's why we have the comment thread, if a Wad got a bad/crappy review, then comments can be posted about the true quality of the WAD. Why don't people write better reviews (like mine for instance) of wads in these comment threads instead of HURRRR MR FREEZE SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO REVIEW DURRR.